For a couple of decades now, evolution, which is incapable of surviving on science alone, has leaned more and more toward merely attacking anyone who questions it. Instead of using sound logic and observable evidence, Darwinists have used lawsuits, threats and intimidation to keep evolution in schools and textbooks.

Just as one of MANY possible examples, there was a school district which put a sticker in their biology books which essentially said, “Evolution is disputed by some people. We suggest you learn the facts and make up your own mind based on the evidence.” Evolutionists wet their collective Darwinian pants and sued the school, forcing them to remove those stickers.

It’s safer to question the Bible in church than it is to question Darwin in a public school.

Evolution is the creation story of atheism, and so atheists have been taught or shown by example that unbelievers should be given hostility and hatred as opposed to asking what their reasons are or asking to see the evidence. Heretics are not debated. Heretics are not tolerated. They are not given a platform. They are burned at the stake.

When Bill Nye agreed to debate Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, MANY atheists were angry at Nye for even being willing to talk to a Creationist. Atheists prefer to hide behind arrogance, saying things like, “Even debating with them gives them credibility they don’t deserve.”

Really people? Spending time listening to and then dismantling an idea makes it sound MORE plausible? This is your fear? You really think the average person is going to say to themselves, “I always assumed evolution was a fact and Biblical Creationism was stupid and unscientific, but if the former host of a kid’s science show is willing to debate a man named after a non-kosher food, then there must be something to it after all. And I no longer believe in gravity.”

Aside from being a major component of the religion of atheism, evolution has shown kids for generations that that way to deal with disagreement is through the use of force.

DON’T let the other side even speak or be heard.

Shout them down and use law, threats and violence to silence them.

We don’t discuss.

We don’t debate with THOSE people.

We mock them, call them names, and hate them for their intellectual crimes.

This is why atheist make the perfect SJW’s (Social Justice Warriors). They have already been trained that the unbelievers are merely to be attacked. Reasons and evidence are inconsequential. SJW’s don’t show up at an event to debate. They come to scream empty, hateful catch phrases- catch phrases which they refuse to explain or defend. They insist that the members of their own group not even TALK to the other side.

“We have our angry, rhyming slogans! What more do you need to know?”

Evolutionists hate the idea that a Creationist would have the chance to make their case in public. SJW’s hate the idea that a conservative or Christian would have the same chance.

The main difference between the old Atheists and the new Snowflake variety is the SJW’s have distanced themselves from making a case for their own position based on science or observable facts. Instead, they scream about their feelings and set fire to their own campus or throw a full recycling bin through the window of a nearby Starbucks.

I guess there is one example of evolution we can observe. Ignorant atheism has evolved into stupid and violent atheism. Or maybe this is an example of De-Evolution.

I think what it really shows is that Satan only has one small bag of tricks.

11 Responses to The Evolution of SJW’s

“It’s safer to question the Bible in church than it is to question Darwin in a public school.”

So, so true.

This is a very insightful post. If one is motivated by evolution and some of those principles, might makes right, only the strongest survive, I worship my own survival will, than you will try to build a world based on those ideals. If instead you believe in Jesus, the very epitome of sacrificial love who died to know us, than you will try to build a world that reflects Him. One set of beliefs says you’re the competition, a meaningless clump of cells that stands in my way, and the other says you were made in God’s image so I have to try to figure out how to love you.

I recognise that this article was posted almost a year ago, but it was recommended when I was viewing another post.

As you likely know, your argument is all over the map.

First, ‘evolution, which is incapable of surviving on science alone’, is fairly nonsensical. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Science and religion alike require rhetoric to convince. This is how all human communication functions.

Your claim that ‘evolution…has leaned more and more toward merely attacking anyone who questions it’ is simply an unsubstantiated claim you are making based on your opinion.

You go on to say that ‘instead of using sound logic and observable evidence’, but there is no ‘instead’ here. Scientists continue to advance their knowledge and dispose of the parts that cannot pass the test of time. What you mean to say, I feel, is that, ‘along with sound logic and observable evidence…’

Next, you state that ‘Darwinists have used lawsuits, threats and intimidation to keep evolution in schools and textbooks.’ This is true, and this is because creationists employ similar political tactics to do serve their agenda. This is akin to litigating in order to keep the ‘unicorn theory of the universe out of science books as well.

What we are discussing are science books and the notions that science books should contain science. Whilst a deeper understanding of evolution is likely to evolve, it is empirically testable. The same cannot be said for creationism. Some detractors dismiss ‘evolution’ as a theory. I understand that at the same time it demonstrates the lack of understanding of what a theory is, at least it rises to a higher level that ‘creationism’, which is just wild conjecture—an opinion.

Where ‘there was a school district which put a sticker in their biology books which essentially said, “Evolution is disputed by some people”‘ falls into the same category as removing stickers that say ‘reality is disputed by some people’ or ‘some people believe in unicorns’. We don’t need science books cluttered with stickers supporting every wild opinion. Again, no one is seriously supporting putting disclaimers and warning labels on bibles. It’s no different.

Referring to these labels, you go on to say, ‘We suggest you learn the facts and make up your own mind based on the evidence’, yet there is zero (0) evidence for the basis of creationism—zero, zilch, nada. At least supporters of evolution have something to hang their hats on.

‘Evolution is the creation story of atheism.’ I wonder if all atheists believe in evolution. This is your claim. I suppose it could be true.

‘Atheists have been taught or shown by example that unbelievers should be given hostility and hatred.’ This is your unsubstantiated opinion.

Atheists don’t ask creationists ‘what their reasons are or asking to see the evidence’. First, this is patently untrue. Their point is that there is no evidence. The primary argument employed is that God and gods exist on a metaphysical plane, out of bounds for science and evidence.

‘Even debating with them gives them credibility they don’t deserve.’ In the same way as ‘climate change deniers’ are not credible, not all opinions are created equally.

I’ll end here. The remainder of the post continues to insist on ‘reasons and evidence’, but there is none to be found. I’ve already said this. It seems that the creationists are the snowflakes in this fight.

I’m not entirely sure how you conflate anarchists and atheists, but I’ll help you out: many anarchists oppose the system of imposed government, property, and capitalism. To attack property is to attack these things they oppose. It’s not at all paradoxical.

Greetings Mic! You have a lot to say here, but it’s all essentially a single thought. You are claiming to be ignorant and using that as evidence that I am wrong. It is, as you say, “simply an unsubstantiated claim you are making based on your opinion.” I find it obviously ironic that you accuse me over and over of presenting my “unsubstantiated opinion” in a comment full of nothing but your own unsubstantiated opinions. But I digress.

While I could nit pick all of this, let me sum it up with a glaring example. You say:
“..there is zero (0) evidence for the basis of creationism—zero, zilch, nada. At least supporters of evolution have something to hang their hats on.”

Now it would be honest for you to claim that you are nor persuaded by the arguments or evidence for creation, but you have claimed that there IS NO EVIDENCE for Creation. This means you are either wildly ignorant or deeply dishonest. I can’t make you honest, but I can answer questions to fill in the gaps of your ignorance. Perhaps you should try asking some questions?

And because you put your faith in evolution, I suspect I can also educate you on Evolution as well. The fact that you describe evolution as “it is empirically testable” shows that you are using the word wrong. If you understood what was meant by “evolution” you would not make such a claim, but would perhaps echo the claims of Evolution Believer Richard Dawkins who once famously said of evolution, “..we haven’t observed it while it was happening.”

While perhaps I did not make it clear enough in this article, I do make clear in MANY others that the Evolution I am debunking is that of Darwinian Evolution- the notion that small, gradual losses of functional genetic information can and does over time create large additions of genetic information such that, given enough time, bacteria become Beethoven.
I have a series which describes in detail what evolution is, according to Darwin and the present understanding of Genetics, as well as defining in clear terms the various proposed “Mechanisms of evolution” and why none of them, logically, CAN cause the evolution which Atheists put their faith in. It begins here: https://abitoforange.com/2016/03/01/defining-evolution-1-the-fight-almost-starts/
Enjoy that and let me know if you have any questions.
And thanks for stopping by!

At no point do I claim to be an ‘evolutionist’. I am merely offering that the preponderance of evidence-based opinion leans in that direction. And no correlating evidence base exists for the notion of divine creation.

Also, note that attacking Darwinism is rather silly, as most modern theory has ‘evolved’ well past many of his initial suppositions, and many laypersons misunderstand and misrepresent what Darwin’s claims were in the first place, which starts from the popular notion of ‘survival of the fittest’.

As for the question you ask of me: What proof are you offering as proof of the basis for Creationism, where Creationism is defined as follows:

Ref: Creationism (noun), the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

Hey Mate. Backatcha.
Ah, you’ll pardon my confusion. You said a lot of things, such as calling Evolution “empirically testable” and then, immediately after, “The same cannot be said for creationism.” So, I assumed that you were saying evolution had something to do with science and creation does not. Since, that’s what it sounded like. So, I suppose you are meaning to tell me that you say things like this: “evidence-based opinion leans in that direction (toward evolution). And no correlating evidence base exists for the notion of divine creation.” And yet you don’t mean to tell me that you are siding with evolution? Is there some third option which you would like to tell me about? I’d be interested in that.

In the mean time, let me address your core question: “What proof are you offering as proof of the basis for Creationism?”
There is a lot, so I shall sum it up for you:
Logic: From nothing, nothing comes. Something exists, thus God must exist. Big Bang FAILS and is the illogical faith of fools.
Information: Information/language ONLY comes from a mind. Information exists in DNA, and the fundamental laws of the universe are fine tuned beyond any rational naturalistic explanation. Thus, every living cell and strand of DNA is evidence that God must exist and Darwinism is the faith of fools.
Cosmology/Astronomy: Even if the Big Bang is assumed, it cannot explain the formation of stars, galaxies, planets, and the heavier elements. Thus, the fact that these things exist is explained by Creation and cannot be explained by atheistic naturalism. Furthermore, observations all across our own solar system show not only the evidence of design but the impossibility of deep time. Evolution fails yet again and Biblical Creation Must be true to explain what we observe.
Microbiology: Even single living cells are vastly more complex and full of information than has ever been produced my mankind. The idea that they could form against not only probability but several key laws of chemistry and science is absurd, and it is obvious that an intelligent designer is required for ANY cell, let alone complex multi-cellular life. Darwinism again fails and is the faith of fools. Biblical creation fits the facts and is needed to explain what we observe.
Genetics: There is no known observable process by which genes come into existence thereby to explain the vast thousands and thousands of genes that exist in every genome in the world, thus producing every structure, function, and behavior of living things. All of science and probability makes this impossible and only a blind faith in Atheism or Darwin keeps these ideas alive in anyone’s mind. Genetics at the simplest level is evidence for a brilliant intelligent designer who is not himself a biological being.
Evolution: Except for mutations, there is NO SINGLE PROPOSED OR OBSERVED mechanism of biological change which produces new genes, thus resulting in new structures, functions, and behaviors. All of proposed evolutionary mechanisms are incapable of making new kinds of plants or animals, and yet all of these observed mechanisms explains speciation according to a Biblical framework, including the genetic bottleneck at the flood event.
Mutations: Genes have only been seen to break down and malfunction. Thus, the genetic study of mutations shows that genetic information was perfect in the recent past and has been breaking down over a limited number of generations. The recent study of genetic entropy shows that the harmful mutations in any species will eventually add up into extinction, given enough time, while the possibility of those changes adding up into new functional and beneficial genetic information in mathematically impossible.
And of course there is history, archaeology, paleontology, geology, world-history, radio-dating, etc. But sadly I have an appointment to get to. Do some homework and you will find the answers. Maybe start here: https://abitoforangeacademy.wordpress.com/2017/04/03/creation-resources/
I did a little homework for you already. Enjoy.

Despite the claim, this is not logical but is yet a standard claim. Let me accept that nothing comes from nothing.

Firstly, perhaps there never was nothing, but let’s skip this. I’ve got no way to prove or even test this.

Secondly, you write ‘Something exists, thus God must exist.’

Why is this so? I can as well say ‘something exists, thus unicorns exist’ or ‘something exists, thus fhfvbsdfkljhs exists’.

I’ll surmise that perhaps you suppose that since nothing comes from nothing that God is the catalyst for ‘something’, yet you have to answer to where ‘God’ came from. Given Occam’s Razor, I can cut God out of the equation and simplify it. Given the current understanding of the beginning of this universe, there is no need for God. The ‘need’ for this variable would be to ‘push the button’ to start it process in motion. This comes off like some unnecessary Rube Goldberg project.

Probably the most accepted theory for the origin of the universe is the Big Bang, but there are still scientists who suggest other concepts. For my purpose of day-to-day existence, that’s good enough for me. I’ve got no need to complicate matters.

One last thought: Taking from Deists, even if God did create the universe as we know it, there is nothing inherent in this to presume that ‘entity’ would need to hang around to listen to prayers.

Ok, Imma switch it up because I’m a ‘Mercain: Hey Homie.
See, doesn’t that make me sound regional?
I appreciate you taking the time to read and consider what I’ve said, but I must say, with all due respect, that you come to a bunch of common and disappointing conclusions. I blame the public schools.

We DO have a way to test the principle of causality- SCIENCE! See, the laws of thermodynamics tell us that no matter or energy can be created by Natural means- which not only tells us that The Big Bang is physically impossible, but also that the universe needs a SuperNatural explanation. BUT science/physics also tells us that matter and energy are “running down” meaning that energy is becoming increasingly unusable, which will eventually lead to the heat death of the universe. But this means time is not infinite, because given enough time, the universe dies and it has not yet died, and thus only a finite amount of time has passed. But then this means that science proves a beginning to time and space and matter and energy a finite time ago by means which MUST BE immaterial, timeless and spaceless, and amazingly brilliant because of how fine tuned the entire universe is (as well as all of that info in genetics etc). So what is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and amazingly powerful and brilliant which has claimed to be the cause of the universe in the single most popular book ever written? God. Specifically Jesus Christ/the God of the Bible, as this argument actually doesn’t apply to just any “god” one can imagine. That’s just lazy.

This forces you into one of three positions:
1. Follow the argument and realize that the universe proves the existence of the God of the Bible.
2. Reject all of science- especially physics, but let’s face it, pretty much the rest as well.
3. Claim something ELSE made the universe, but at the end of the day you are going to be describing GOD while using a different name, like that guy who debated William Lane Craig and pretended he could imagine a computer which was immaterial, timeless and spaceless, and amazingly brilliant as the cause of the universe, and, as Dr. Craig pointed out, this makes the word “Computer” fairly meaningless as it CANNOT apply, and he was, as I said, describing God but using the word “computer” so he could pretend he was not.

So, why you brought up unicorns, I have no idea. It’s like you missed the entire point of my argument. I hope I clarified it this time around.

2. Occam’s razor absolutely does NOT allow you to pretend God doesn’t exist. First, because that’s not how it works. Occam’s Razor is intended to let you dismiss overly complicated explanations so you don’t needlessly multiply causes. For example- if you find a murder scene and there is one weapon with one set of footprints and one set of fingerprints on the weapon, then it would be recommended by our friend Occam to assume only one killer instead of assuming 125 trained assassins because, even though it is technically possible, it is unwarranted to explain the data.
So even if we are faced with no explanation for where God came from, that doesn’t dismiss God as the best explanation of the observed facts to be explained. That would be like saying “This man was shot seven times, which would imply a shooter, but since we don’t know who the shooter’s parents are, we will Occam’s razor it all away and assume he died of natural causes.”
Second, you cannot dismiss God’s existence via Occam’s Razor because it does not allow you to dismiss a NECESSARY explanation merely because you prefer a simpler (or in this case naturalistic) explanation. This is actually one big concept:
The Universe CANNOT contain within it the explanation for its own existence. It cannot have caused itself, and we know it cannot have existed forever, and thus it MUST have come into being and thus needs a cause. God is that cause, as only he has the traits required to bring the universe into being. Furthermore, as God exists outside of time and matter and space (and because of the illogical impossibility of an infinite regress) God need have no cause. He is NECESSARY, meaning he did not begin to exist as the universe certainly did, but He simply IS- which is the name he gives to Moses “I AM.” And again this discounts other religions (debunking them and the deists you invoke) because this description of the cause of the universe and the eternal self existence of God is only found in the Bible. (Further arguments against deism are found in other philosophy, theology, and of courser history- specifically the life of Jesus).

In summation, it is not the Biblical worldview which complicated matters. The universe exists. There are necessary traits that any cause needs to bring about the effect in question. GOD is needed to explain the universe. The Big Bang FAILS to explain the universe and most of its observed components such as planets, stars, life, etc. It is a failed hypothesis which is only held to avoid the obvious conclusion that God exists, and which, like the theory of evolution, has been endlessly evolving because it continues to fail to fit the facts. Big Bang is a pile of patches sewn onto patches onto holes in a bad theory with very little observable data and a LOT of presumption which contradicts observation. But I suggest you learn more about all of that here:https://abitoforangeacademy.wordpress.com/2017/04/03/the-big-bang-never-happened/

Keep asking good questions, homie, and it will all become clear. Rock on, and remember #JesusLovesYou

Within the realm of jurisprudence, there is a concept relative to contract law known as ‘severalty’, wherein the invalidity of a single aspect of the contract does not nullify the entire contract.

I think you are misinterpreting the ‘known unknowns’ in science and injecting God into that space. Many scientists admit that there is more they know than they don’t know as well as the proverbial ‘the more I know, the more I don’t know’, but none of this implies a god or gods. If you are employing the term ‘God’ to be synonomous with ‘unknown’, that’s one thing, but if you are presuming some animated, interactive ‘entity’, there amount of direct experienctial evidence is nil to none.

There is virtually no reason to believe in the documentary accounts of the various religions.

Simply: No. If you follow the logic presented in my arguments, I am not arguing that “because science doesn’t know how X can happen naturally, then GOD…” I am arguing that “Since logic, reason, observable evidence, and known laws of physics, chemistry, etc. show that X is impossible without an intelligent designer, then the rational conclusion is an intelligent designer.”

And of course, this is normal to a lot of fields, such as archaeology, crime scene investigation, the SETI project etc. And taken as a whole, the case for God shows the absolute DEMAND for an intelligent designer who is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and personal- in other words, GOD. This is not the filling of ignorance with the assumption of God, this is the logical conclusion when unhindered by the a priori assumption of atheism. What YOU are doing is equivalent to walking into a crime scene and saying “Look, when a man is shot seventeen times, he NATURALLY dies. Thus, this was a death by natural causes. If you’re going to try and wedge a mythical unknown SHOOTER into what we DON’T know, then you immediately come into the problem of where did the shooter come from? So I’m going to Occam’s razor all of that and assume the scientific explanation of death by natural causes.”

You conclude with “if you are presuming some animated, interactive ‘entity’, there amount of direct experienctial evidence is nil to none.” And again you are interjecting your own ignorance or lack of experience as evidence of absence, and that is a logical fallacy. I’ve never seen Tokyo Japan, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
And then you say “There is virtually no reason to believe in the documentary accounts of the various religions.” Which again is you not only conflating the Biblical worldview with “All religions” (which is as absurd as me demanding you prove EVERY scientific model or theory ever devised to defend whatever scientific model you propose), but also asserts your own ignorance as evidence. There are, as I have merely begun to show here, enormous numbers of reasons to know the Biblical worldview is true. There is FAR more I have not even touched on. That you can insist that “There is virtually no reason to believe” is groundless and somewhere between offensive and embarrassing. You have a lot to learn. Merely insisting that I believe lies which are without basis is not the position you are in. YOU should be asking good questions. It is atheism which is actually and literally without defense. No argument can be made in it’s favor, because there are none which can be made. It’s like writing a persuasive speech to argue that words do not exist. It literally cannot be done.

Atheism is dead. It’s time to begin looking for clues and interrogating witnesses until you discover the truth. Dust off your pipe and deerstalker, you have a God to track down. But the good news is, He’s already hunting you.

” I am arguing that “Since logic, reason, observable evidence, and known laws of physics, chemistry, etc. show that X is impossible without an intelligent designer, then the rational conclusion is an intelligent designer.”

You are making an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. It is not ‘impossible’, as you state; you are simply attempting to assert that because you are not satisfied with any of the existing hypotheses based on the current state of inquiry, you are compelled to insert X, where X is some ‘intelligent designer’.

It’s apparent that you’ve informed yourself of the various arguments for and against your position, so I’ll assume that you’ve already discounted the ‘blind watchmaker’ argument against intelligent design, so I won’t rehash it here.

OK, for the sake of continuing the other thread you’ve pulled, I’ll ignore the other religions, though it’s difficult to extricate the constituent religious content that the Bible mirrors, whether Gilgamesh or other ancient sources. As it happens, the ‘modern’ bible is the result of millennia of human editing and dubious interpretations. Likely more of it has been removed than remains, and what remains is not even internally consistent.

I’ve read the Bible (and other religious texts) cover to cover in the early 1980s. The Old Testament is literally a joke, and the New Testament is all hearsay. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Bible is some divinely-inspired product. This is purely a leap of faith, and I don’t subscribe.

It’s late as I am writing this, so you’ll forgive me giving this a quick summation answer:
1. “You are making an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. It is not ‘impossible’, as you state..”
No, I absolutely am NOT. You are ignoring what I have said in my previous answers. I stand by what I said and you have the burden of proof to show what no scientists has ever shown to be possible- that information can write itself or that anything can be its own cause. You are either ignoring the facts, ignorant of anything relevant to what I have said here, or pretending that, as Mary Poppins recently said, “Anything is possible, even the impossible.” While I loved the movie, I reject her philosophy and once again remind you that you must show that the impossible- which I call impossible because of what IS known- is somehow possible. Your assertion here is simply wrong and ignores what I have said, which makes me begin to wonder why I will bother replying if what I said goes ignored in this manner. I don’t mind answering questions. I mind when people carry on as if I have said nothing.

2. “it’s difficult to extricate the constituent religious content that the Bible mirrors” you make the mistake of presuming that the Bible is the story AFTER the story. You will find this to be a proposition impossible to defend because it is in fact wrong- for a host of reasons I won’t illuminate now. But as you have here used your conclusion as the foundation of your argument, you will have to escape your circular reasoning before you can even think seriously about it. You clearly have gotten all of your notions as to where the Bible came from by watching bitter and ignorant atheists on YouTube and not even by stooping as high as educated skeptics. I suggest you do better, and I’ve already left you the link you need to find better. You can decide if you want to learn or if you want to remain in the dark.

3. “The Old Testament is literally a joke, and the New Testament is all hearsay. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Bible is some divinely-inspired product.”
I’m absolutely certain that you do not know that the “hearsay” you dismiss out of hand here is in fact a collection of first-hand eyewitness testimonies which is more defensible than any other historical account and with FAR more existing copies than the top ten contenders combined, all of which is traceable back to their authors by historical/literary methods. This empty bluster shows rather badly that you should be asking questions and not making bold statements of fact. You’ve said nothing, and still managed to be both terribly rude and astoundingly wrong.

I must ask something which ALWAYS confuses me and for which no one ever gives me an answer. If you are in fact the cynical and overly confident jackanapes you pretend to be, then why, I must wonder, would you bother coming to this blog, reading what I have to say, and then discussing it with me? Once again you are making arguments from your own ignorance, as no educated skeptic would say, “There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Bible is some divinely-inspired product.” They may still say they disagree with Christianity, but they don’t say anything half that stupid- because they know better (Let alone would they allow “The Old Testament is literally a joke” fall from their lips without immediately becoming overwhelmed with shame and regret).

If you are so dedicated to your ignorance and pretend atheism, then why are you- in all seriousness- here at all? Shouldn’t you be either SCRAMBLING to find out who God/Godess/etc is/are (as you seem to think you know who He isn’t), or (assuming you’ve resigned yourself to this stupid pretense of atheism) getting drunk/high and throwing your every cent left over into prostitutes or whatever shiny toy distracts you from the coming oblivion as you race toward death with every single beat of your heart? As I have said to a hundred skeptics before you- I don’t believe that you are stupid enough to be an atheist, and if you were, you wouldn’t be spending your fleeting remaining moments in this short life talking to be about the Bible. SO if we are to continue conversing, please drop the pretense.

With all due respect, either dedicate yourself to a life of selfish hedonism until it kills you, or give up this faux-confident attitude as if you have, in the goodness of your heart, come here to free me from my illusions. If you want to respectfully ask questions and see what answers I have, I am your obedient servant, but if you think I’m going to continue reading long collections of paragraphs whose only conveyed meaning is, “I don’t know what you believe, but you’re wrong and I think you’re an idiot,” I will respectfully decline.